Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
enforcement one of the reasons why the obama administration embraced it, but it's all about how these things are represented and what they're obligated to say when your pants down. do you believe in enforcing these laws been problematic are not? and when you say -- the whole idea of the. >> translator: is that these aren't the good kids. many -- i think they're right. it doesn't mean that they're a bad kid. community college or maybe you have got in trouble when you're a teenager. i think there is something very disingenuous about the debate we have around us, but of course that is because advocates of destruction debate in the certain white. this is rooted in any kind of believes that our prior to the way that we actually structure the conversation. i think that advocates have structured the conversation very advantageous sleep. >> a couple more questions in the month to cut off. i was wondering if you could and testimonials in terms of looking forward toward the democratic party strength. >> and also the gentleman over there. >> thank you. thanks to the forum today. the panelists. i can gi
.gov/bookfest. jeffrey to the reports on the relationship which in the obama administration and the u.s. supreme court. the author exam of the recent addition of the four justices in the past five years and how it has affected the court's decisions on the numerous cases including its recent ruling on health care. it's about an hour. [applause] thank you. hello, everybody. so excited to be here in philadelphia. i know that is the usual pandering that goes on by the speakers but in my case it happens to be true. i am not myself from philadelphia, but my dad was at the high school. [applause] depending has just begun. curtis institute. i don't know if we have any more here and he went to temple as well and he taught me that the streets were paved and i have enjoyed my visit ever since. i'm really happy to be talking about the oath. italy cannot today's ago. so far, so good. it's exciting. you work on these books and people like to lead them. it's exciting to the answer, but the start by asking the first question that i know is on your mind, which is who is your favorite justice? [laughter] it's not elena
of achievement on the obama administration and ends up accepting argument at time it was red called. the theory that the penalty people pay if they choose not to follow the mandate is a tax, and falls in the government's taxes power. this argument, of course, was in great -- with the fact that obama administration and congress had disclaimed there was anything about the law that was a tax. >> when you went in to the argument, and thought about the case, you mentioned you were conscious about where you thought your stronger and weaker points were. how vulnerability did you think you were on that. >> can imagine almost anything. but that was not something that was keeping me up at night. and you just, you know, as a lawyer you got to be practical about this. and, you know, you look at, by the way, by the time we got to the supreme court we had a lot of models for opinions that, you know, upheld the law and a lot of models for opinions that struck the law down. and the overwheeling them was, you know, even the judges that july held the law didn't think much of the taxes argument, anne, you know, h
obama recently declined to defend and the administration is enforcing it. the house has created the bipartisan legal advisory group. and the fans these laws since the administration abdicated its role in defending them and paul clement in that task. there are several cases all of which have petitions to decide. the first one and probably the front runner is a combination case, personnel management and the department of health and human services. it came out of massachusetts. two cases have been combined and they argue the equal protection clause violates section 3 of the defense of marriage act because the defense of marriage act violates the equal protection clause because there is no rational basis for this or it doesn't pass strict scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny must pass has been questioned so we're happy to argue both. elena kagan was involved at the district court level during confirmation hearings that came out and questions her office had been involved in doing internal discussions of strategies in the case so she would be recused from that case and that p
than the previous administration did. and we've been winning the cases. >> wednesday president obama and mitt romney meet in the first presidential debate. news hour jim moderates from the university of denver. watch and debate with c-span followed by two ways to watch the debate at nine. on c-span both candidates on screen the entire debate. and on c-span2, the multicamera version of the debate. and following, your reactions, calls, e mailings and and tweets. follow the live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and online at see the first presidential debate love on c-span, c-span radio and watch and engage. coming up tonight, the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts a decision discussion on the role of the u.s. president in the world and declining. eric can ton faces his economic challenger in a seventh district debate. that's followed by libertarian presidential candidate gary johnson on the obstacle of faces a third party candidate. >>> on washington journal tomorrow morning, we'll exam the health care law that presidential candidates mitt romney s
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5